tv [untitled] December 15, 2014 5:00am-5:31am PST
certain parcels in the area immediately surrounding the transit center to up zone, meaning to allow developers to build taller buildings. they're worth a lot more money so it's a significant benefit for those developers. you can see that illustrated when you look at sales force tower. that was zoned for 550 feet. now as a result of the tower it's going to be 1070 feet and twice as tall. >> >> and the developers had to participate in a mello roos community facilities district and the idea they're helping to support the infrastructure to support all of the additional people that the taller buildings are bringing into a dense urban area so this is very relevant to the trans bay program because
most of the revenues are designated to trances bay so in order to move forward with receiving those funds the mello roos act requires that if an entity other than the entity levying the tax, which in this case is the city, is actually receiving the revenue there needs a joint facilities agreement and the agreement specifies how the funds will be spent and it's laid out in the implementation document that accompanied the transit center plan and allows us to spend the funds on the d tx and the rail components and the roof top park so the resolution before you today would approve that agreement. the city already approved the agreement through the board of supervisors when the resolution of intention to form the community facilities district was approved by the board on the 15th so we need to
move forward on our end before the board of supervisors considers the ordinance to levy the special tax for the cfd. i wanted to note and you see on the slide here the city's original schedule had the board of supervisors considering that ordinance on january 6. just yesterday that date was changed to january 13 because the board isn't going to hold a meeting on the january 6 so staff recommends that we recommend the resolution that refers to that hearing date on january 6 so it reads january 13 and with they would be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> i don't see any questions but i will make a motion to make that amendment as so stated and i think we can do that without objection. [gavel] so at this time we will take public comment on this item. >> no members of the public to address you on this item. >> seeing no public we have a
motion and approval. roll call please. >> motion to approve to correct the date and the whereas cleaz to december 13. director nuru. >> yes. >> director reiskin. >> aye. >> director harper. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye's and that item is approved. >> thank you. can we please call item 10. >> item 10 is approving amendment to the contract with webcor/obayashi to award a contract to shimmick with the lowest bidder in the amount of $5,875,000 and the bollards and barriers and increasing the direct costs by the same amount and authorized construction services fixed fee by $446,500. >> we will report on this item. >> on the suggestion from board members we're open to questions since the contracts are fairly straightforward and we do have a question.
director reiskin. >> just two questions. one, should we be concerned at all about the wide range of bids or the fact that given that every other bid is coming in above estimate this was one quite below estimate which of course is good news? and any concerns with that? and the second question is about operationally all of this bol lards and blocking mechanisms and explain how they actually function and only when the facility is closed or how is it going to work in terms of buses coming in and out of the facility all the time and perhaps why we even need them. >> the fact that we have the bids under budget that's a [inaudible] all of us. >> great. >> what we're seeing is what we sought all along in cases we had several bidders and with the bollards and barriers we had four bidders so we had
competitive bids. we had high bids but the remaining three were competitive so thus far every time we had four bidders we had good numbers and competitive bids, and as they do aggressive outreach in order to maximize the number of bidders and if we continue to get three or four bids more we expect to get good results. if not we expect to see higher bids. for the bollards and barriers the bollards are around the perimeter of the building ground level and the bus deck and [inaudible] significant component of the [inaudible]. the wedge barriers are to limit the access or control the access for cars and that's mainly on the howard street ramp as well as the muni bus plaza so that
cars don't interfere with traffic. >> so are the bollards and barriers going up and down every time a bus is going through? >> it depends on the location. some barriers are fixed. some are retractable and the wedge barriers will be -- depends how we operate the building but it's in the areas we think there is opportunity for wrong doing or wrong traffic we would operate them. >> okay. thank you. >> there are approximately six wedge barriers. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> okay. thank you. at this time we will open it up for public comment on this item. >> no members indicated they want to address you on this item. >> thank you. we have a motion and a second. can we take roll call. >> sure. director nuru. >> aye.
>> director reiskin. >> aye. >> director harper. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> four aye's. item 10 is approved. go ahead and move into the next item? >> yes. >> item 11 is approving an amendment to the contract with webcor/obayashi to award a contract to mckendry door sales as the responsible bidders submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $137,777 and the authorizing constructions services fixed fee by $10,471. >> and we will answer questions if you have any on this item. >> i would move approval. >> second. >> okay. seeing no questions on this item we will now open for public comment. >> no member -- >> seeing none. close public comment. we have a motion and a second. roll call on this item. >> director nuru. >> aye. >> director reiskin. aye director harper. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that's four aye's on item
11 is approved. >> thank you. item 12. >> 12 is authorizing the executive director to amend the professional services agreement for community benefit district formation assistance services with mjm management group to change the term of agreement to two years and option to extend for additional year as well as increase the total compensation not to exceed value of $79,900. >> scott can zero -- answer questions or have a presentation. >> just a summary. >> this item extends a contract with mjm management group. they have been working with us and the city on the communities benefits district that is intended to help cover a portion of the operation maintenance park costs for city park. the original agreement was for one year. the formation
of the cbd has essentially been held up by the ongoing discussion related to the cfd. it's the same group of major property owners that have to vote, and so now that the cfd is moving forward and will be considered for final approval in january by the board of supervisors we're hoping -- we're planning for the process to move again in earnest in the spring but it required an extension of the contract. >> thank you for all the work that's been happening. i know it's been a challenging past couple of months with some uncertainty and the cbd and the mello roos district is important for the neighborhood. i am curious -- obviously there is no firm timeline but what the thinking around that would be around the cbd process? when we expect this to come before the voters and the board for final approval? either mr. bolay or
mc cue. >> the timeline for the petitioning process is expected to be complete in mid-april. it's a two stage voting process. the first stage at least 30% of the weighted votes within the district -- votes are weighted based on the amount of property owned. 30% of those have to petition the board of supervisors to call an election. that phase is scheduled to be completed in mid-april and the balloting process which requires 50% of the votes cast to be in favor of that and phase four of the agreement and scheduled to be completed in august. >> thank you. so is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. so public comment is
now closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> a motion and a second. roll call on this item. >> director nuru. >> aye. >> director reiskin. aye. >> director harper. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye's and item 12 is approved. >> item 13. >> item 13 is approving the minutes of the november 13, 2014 meeting and no members of the public indicate they want to address you on that item. >> so is it possible for me to abstain from this item with three votes? >> yes. >> can we take a roll call? >> director nuru. >> aye. >> director reiskin. >> aye. >> director harper. >> aye. >> and with chair kim abstaining that's three aye a. the minutes are approved. >> thank you. let's move on to the informational items so item 8. >> i will call item 8 which
is the presentation by california high speed rail authority and the pen opinion joint powers board on boarding heights and widths. >> and directors as promised we're bringing an update by caltrain and high speed rail on the platform compatibility as well as width and to begin will be brian dikes. >> good morning directors. i am brian dikes principle engineer and this is a mere fraction of what we did on monday with the land use committee which the chairman sat through very well. thank you. the reason we're doing this and the only introduction i'm going to make is one slide. if all trains can come to all platforms you can schedule the start up of a commuter system and a long distance system you're free. it's much more efficient especially as the number of
high speed trains will start at two and r and four and r and 60 and r is long process so we need something flexible to get as many trains in at the beginning and this is really what is the dialogue that is going on now. it's working sections and which will be reported by caltrain and high speed rail right now. we are making progress and in fact a detail simulation of this all platformsar all trains and under way and i will get the results next friday so things are moving and not sitting on their tails and we will present the work that caltrain is doing. >> thank you mr. dikes. good
morning directors. by way of orientation and you have seen these slides before but to take us back to a point and time we currently have a system that has boarding heights at 8 inches above top of rail for the existing fleet. we use either minihighs or lifts integral to the cars to comply with the ada requirements and as we have gone forward to try to determine what to do with the shared platform the original analysis done and what caltrain settled on was 25 inches above top of rail and the high speed rail was in the 48 to 50-inch range. can you see the list of challenges there on the board, its capacity, its compatibility. it's the ability to hold schedules. each one of those is the items we're looking at right now to go ahead and analyze what the potentials are and what the best solution is. in that methodology we have had several meetings. we had one which is with the principles of
both high speed rail and caltrain. we have a series of technical meetings that started on the fifth of november and we've had several of those that are collaborative between high speet rail and caltrain looking at what those potential solutions are. we've also started to go ahead and have conversations with the industry. that's really going to determine what is possible and what isn't possible so we're going through a process right now that we started last week with one of the vehicle manufactures to have them determine and discuss with us what is the potential for putting two different levels of doors, whether a single level with internal stairs because it's really the car builders that will determine what we can and can't do so we're going to those experts and having those conversations with them and our intention is to get through those conversations with eight or 10 car builders that are international firms through the month of d that will let us.
>> >> december and that will let us complete the criteria evaluation process in the december time frame and then we will look at what the alternatives are, what the solutions can be during the january and february timeframe. the intent would be to come back to this body in the month of march and explain what we have been able to find, what the potentials are for the solutions, and what path we have to move forward? we will go through the policy decision process because it will require policy decisions with several boards to determine exactly what those boarding heights will be and how we will accommodate that within the new fleet we're about to acquire and how we transition to the future because the transition to the future is really the important and difficult part of this process. that concludes what i had for this part of the presentation and ben is going to take the next piece. >> thank you. madam chair
and board members and i am reiterate what was said in terms of the work we have been doing tsmght i would add something to the follow on work that we're looking to move forward next year being respectful of caltrans environmental clearance process on the electrification process and as soon as they have a document we are looking forward to move forward for the high speed rail service in the corridor and include many of the elements impacted by level boarding and platform heights, lengths, station modifications, passing tracks, the actual service rail and operation of the corridor so it speaks to the core element of our partnership aiming at integrated rail and not prohibiting high speed rail in the corridor and we're moving
in that direction. just briefly this is a sketch of the base vehicle we're looking at and discussing with the industry for your reference the kind of bilevel multi-unit where we can look at the location of the doors on the train to accommodate both future level boarding at a 48 or 50-inch level and still have available a 25-inch boarding level that we can utilize for that transition period acknowledging that the transition to level boarding at a higher level at each station will take many years to accomplish. it's not going to be a one year or five year effort. it's going to be a 15, 20 year effort to accomplish that so we need a fleet that can accommodate that transition and we believe this base vehicle gives us that opportunity and what we're having the conversation with the industry about and we're confident based
on the initial conversation with one of the manufacturers and follow up conversations with the industry to land on a successful outcome. that's really all i have to add. i am happy to answer any questions. >> director reiskin. >> yeah, thank you for the presentations. i am glad to hear there are meetings happening. hopefully they're leading toward the outcome that's going to get us to platforms and that can be shared platforms because at the risk of reiterating how essential that is particularly for this facility, the utility of the facility would be significantly degraded if we don't achieve that so i am glad to hear we're moving in that direction or at least there is a lot of meetings happening. i hope we're moving in that direction. my question is about timing because i understood -- i guess mistakenly from the meeting two months ago that there were procurements
starting somewhat imminently for high speed rail and caltrains so could you give an update which each is initiating? >> i can't speak to the specifics but we have a window that delayed that a bit. >> we have two procurements and one is for the design and the electrification and independent from the vehicle type and the expectation we will go forward with that at the end of january, beginning of february. the expectation right now is put together a procurement to go out in may or june time frame after we go through the exercise on the vehicles and go through the policy decisions so we get that vehicle under the procurement so where we were targeting a vehicle procurement in that timeframe we have postponed that until we conclude the process.
>> and high speed rail what about procurement. >> procurement wasn't happen until next year so there is sufficient time to respond to that on the vehicle and incorporate it for the rfp for the state wide vehicle. >> okay. and i guess the other question is more for the board what we had discussed a couple months ago also was the board considering a resolution urging the two different rail agencies towards the path of level platforms, again recognizing how important it is to the transit center that we're responsible for. i don't think we have one before us, but i am wondering if others on the board concur that would be useful for us to formally go on record as doing? >> yeah, i believe there will be something coming forward but it looks like the two parties are meeting and they are making
progress so i will wait to hear a little bit more of what you find out with this particular coach that you're looking at and then we should make probably get the report and the resolution for us. >> well, for me what i hear -- what i hope i am hearing is caltrain is not going to make any commitments until we get -- our feedback and we get to see all of this and i presume that the modeling that is being done will model a fully all caltrains -- all caltrains going to the terminal, six high speed rails going to the terminal because i am most concerned about our throat and whether or not at the full conception of how many trains we can operate in any other way. with those two caveats i am fine -- because we
do need to study it and model it and as long as caltrains says we're doing that -- >> [inaudible] created some of the situation. d modeling -- the modeling done now is for the full blended system and four high speed trains and six caltrains so it goes in phases. >> >> it starts five and two and moves to six and four. this terminal i think that the modeling will prove it that we can easily take it. we can probably take 12 -- a couple extra trains on top of that. >> yeah, with that i am kind of comfortable they're doing -- they're at least headed to where -- at least going to be studying where we want to go and i think it needs to be studied and let's figure it out. any other questions? all right. thank you. good to see your
cooperation in this and help. >> you have one member of the public on item 8. >> good morning directors. so i would just like to very briefly re-cap what i said at plans and programs and the issues are very simple. when the high speed rail authority agreed to build the system they over looked the fact they had to change the specifications for the trains, so where does that bring us? two days ago before the meeting i gave them brochure on two trains, one bilevel for caltrain and one hide speed from the same manufacturer. >> >> that meet the same tracks and just like in europe and the key there is something called uc501 and what on earth is
that? uic is international -- [inaudible] we shall basically worldwide standard for trains and not only look at the size of train on a platform but how much room it needs when rooms which is quite a bit more. both of these trains were compatible and i have since found a slide from the same manufacturer that has the high speed train, both the chinese and the uic501 and the specifications and shows the difference and [inaudible] due course. now, with regards to the modeling i have actually done modeling. okay. based on what is done in london. and london is not five and two, four and six. it's eight and three. eight cal trans and three high speed trains and that's what you're going to take between
london, paris and brussels. during the [inaudible] we actually run 12 trains and no real high speed trains. we have a model that will do this based on [inaudible] do this between trans bay and -- [inaudible] and handy for the e lim -- olympics and the last point is on the peninsula and we have 32 platforms and built out they will have 25. i'm going to quote you directly from the cupuc and now have a section that draws a clear line in the sand that says "if you want to build a high speed line you're going to be doing this and get the speed below 125 the high speed rail authority doesn't have the exclusive right of
building that and getting funding for this" and if it comes to this we will build a line between san jose and san francisco ourselves. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you under that item. we can call item 14. >> please. >> 14 is presentation on the audited financial statements for fiscal year ended june 30, 2014 and the report to the board of directors. >> directors sara will report on this item. >> good morning. i am pleased to present you with our once again clean financial statements. just by way of information we typically do a two part audit process usually in april or may time frame. our auditors come in and do interim field work and do testing then so it's out of the way when they come back in the fall. we at tjpa management we prepare the financial statements and they come back usually for another
week or so in the october time from the frame take a look at the financials, share any comments they have on them with us and do further testing and other items they need to cover for both the single audit and the independent audit of the financials. as i mentioned it's a clean opinion. we're proud of that fact and nathan from our current independent auditor is here to talk about the statements and answer any questions that you have. >> directors. >> thank you. hello everybody. i am nathan and we have completed the financial audit of the trans bay financial statements and looked at the act balances and the disclosures in the statements and federal compliance and internal controls with that and controls of financial reporting of trans
bay and i am pleased to report that the financial statements require no adjustments, no deficiencies in internal controls to report and it was a clean audit and the opinion is no findings so with that said if you guys have any questions and i i am happy to answer them. >> very impressionive of us to do that. i was going to say it's not impressive of anything but our staff but the one thing that it would be nice to tell as a board member is since we are so clean here is it not possible to get this audit in front of us in october or november. i mean this is december and it kind of looks like -- maybe we're slow to the draw here. >> actually we are pretty typical of most public agencies presenting financials in the november-december time from the
frame. urn state law -- under state law you have 180 days, six months to get it done and it comes down getting all of the invoices in from all of the vendors in the fiscal year and we have deadlines to comply getting billing into our funders. getting the june 30 invoices from all of the vendors on a timely manner is sometimes quite difficult so that's really what it comes down to and we have to have that data in order to prepare the financials. to a certain level you can make assumptions what the accounts payable are going to be but you can't do that for all vendors and everybody. you need to get the invoices in, get them processed and you can close off accounts and prepare the financials. >> so our books are such that the invoice isn't in that's not part of that fiscal year it's part of the next fiscal year? >> correct and while there is a